Talk:Depicting Klingons
What an Honor Curious if we could find out who the actors were in this shot, especially the officer who is commanding them. It would be an interesting footnote for Star Trek history, as well as quite an honor, to be identified as the first Klingon who ever appeared in the franchise. (P.S.- I guess the first Romulan would be Decius? Even though he was wearing a helmet). -FleetCaptain 07:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC) : The first two of this group are seen off screen on the left would be the first two in the group, and were only be seen as part of this group in the opening overhead shot. Also, they were all seen on screen simultaneously so technically they would all get "first" billing. Victor Lundin, who didn't even appear in this scene,claims himself to be the "first Klingon", even though he didn't appear until after Kor was introduced, that is, unless he was one of the two who walked out of this frame as this scene was shot... --Alan 10:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC) The answer was already listed on Unnamed Klingon military personnel (23rd century). Bill Blackburn was one of them, interestingly enough. -FC 13:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC) : That "list" is incorrect. Someone just threw all the names associated with the episode with those people. --Alan 18:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Split The appendices section has evolved to a hyper-detailed essay about establishing and developing the Klingon race and takes about 3/4ths of the article at this point. Should it perhaps be split off into a separate Establishing Klingons real-world article. --Pseudohuman (talk) 02:50, July 13, 2013 (UTC) :Oppose this suggestion, quite a typical one when bg info sections get predominantly bigger than the in-universe sections. As is fairly typical of my response in these situations, I reckon we should wait to develop the in-universe info too, as it's shabbily on the under-developed side. --Defiant (talk) 08:07, July 13, 2013 (UTC) The in-universe side is not shabbily underdeveloped, it is just split out into pages like Klingon history, Klingon Empire, Klingon homeworld, Klingon military, Klingon augment virus, Klingon language, Klingon uniform and so on, so that this one article would not be about everything Klingon. Now this article seems to be mostly about developing the Klingon makeup, so that should be in my opinion be split out into a page of its own. --Pseudohuman (talk) 11:07, July 13, 2013 (UTC) :On the contrary, I am well aware that there are several Klingon pages.... I'm referring specifically to the info that belongs here, of which there is a lot more than is currently on the page. --Defiant (talk) 11:49, July 13, 2013 (UTC) If any of the sections was expanded to the size of the current appendices section I would suggest the section was split off too. there is no need to have everything on the same page like this. But we can agree to disagree and wait if someone else has an opinion on this. --Pseudohuman (talk) 21:00, July 13, 2013 (UTC) ::Klingon/Background would be a good name. --Alientraveller (talk) 21:26, July 13, 2013 (UTC) :::We try to avoid subpages here on MA. -- sulfur (talk) 21:33, July 13, 2013 (UTC) ::::I'm in favor of splitting articles that are "too long", if a split can be achieved in a "natural" way. Both of that terms are not that easy to define, I admit - but being among the Top Ten of our is a good indicator of the article being quite long, and the idea to split "design information" from in-universe content was considered natural enough in cases like Constitution class model (which, ironically, is itself the longest article we currently have). I believe that "a different part of the article could be longer, too" is not a good argument against a split (quite the opposite, in fact), so I agree with the suggestion to move that part to its own article. --Cid Highwind (talk) 13:01, July 14, 2013 (UTC) My split suggestion banner has been removed from the page, but there seems to be a majority opinion supporting a split? What would be a good name for the in universe article "Designing the Klingons" "Establishing Klingons"? opinions? --Pseudohuman (talk) 10:02, September 27, 2013 (UTC) ::Klingons in Star Trek. :D --Alientraveller (talk) 10:36, September 27, 2013 (UTC) ::::I'd suggest something less "poetic" and more descriptive, for example Klingon character design or Klingon make-up design, depending on the exact content of the new article. --Cid Highwind (talk) 11:00, September 27, 2013 (UTC) :::::I've re-added the split template, it seems it was removed by mistake, and tend to agree that an article, or several articles for that matter, could be split out of the background section depending on how one would want the information presented. If we're going for one article though, I would actually say it might be better to go more "poetic" and use the title "Klingon motif", since motif can be used to describe both the makeup and narrative styles. - 22:35, September 27, 2013 (UTC) "Klingons in Star Trek" seems most fitting, as the bg-section written by Defiant reads like a magazine article or a chapter in a book, and that would be a good title for it IMO. I wouldn't want to split it up any further. I like it the way it is. See also: Klingons in Star Trek, the real-world story of creating, establishing and designing the Klingon race. --Pseudohuman (talk) 06:44, September 28, 2013 (UTC) :::::Having talked to several people about this in the "real world" (both Trekkies and just general sci-fi fans), I feel it should be noted that when asked what title they would search for when looking for information on "creating, establishing and designing the Klingons, both in makeup and character", none of the suggestions, including my own, were what they would use. The closest match to their suggestions was "Klingon makeup design", as the most common thing suggested (even though that doesn't cover the character of Klingons in the title). The current most popular option, "Klingons in Star Trek", was considered to be either non-descriptive enough or simply redundant, and I tend to agree. I don't think that's a good title for MA, but I could see it used in a magazine or on a website that covers more than just Star Trek. I think we still need to keep looking for a good title that works here. I suggest trying to come up with a name for a category that would cover pages like this, and work backwards to the page name from there. - 02:13, October 6, 2013 (UTC) What's the objection to my original suggestion "Establishing Klingons" that is at least a broad concept as it is a continual process of recreating and redesigning the makeup and re-establishing the culture and style etc. and encyclopedic. sort of. I too think that what ever we decide ppl wont find the real-world page by itself, but will find it through this article. But that is just because MA is mainly an in-universe database. --Pseudohuman (talk) 13:14, October 10, 2013 (UTC) ::::::To my, admittedly non-English native ears, "Establishing Klingons" sounds a bit awkward and ambiguous, as is "Klingons in Star Trek", which I think is somewhat of a pleonasm (where else would Klingons be?) Why not go for the more short and sweet simple "Depicting/Portraying/Imagining Klingons"? (personally I like the ring of "Imagining", but either of the three would do it for me) It is neutral enough as a broad concept to allow for other (real-world) aspects as well, besides make-up alone--Sennim (talk) 14:04, October 10, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Oppose split; Having read through all comments, it has become clear that a split will happen, no matter what, so I've cast my vote on principle, though agreeing with the secondary (note the secondary, put forward as an afterthought) reasons put forward for a split, i.e. a self-contained large, easily split along "natural lines", it holding true, and which, under normal circumstances, would have gotten my support, Yet, I've to admit that I find myself largely in agreement with Defiant's reasoning for voting against a split, apart from my personal feelings that the treatise as is (kudos btw for Defiant, excellent work), is well placed in the article as is, regardless of its length. I've grown wary of the all too easy "being too long" reasoning, without further explanation, as if this were a reason onto itself, which it is explicitly not.--Sennim (talk) 21:17, October 11, 2013 (UTC) Depicting Klingons sounds good too. --Pseudohuman (talk) 21:57, October 11, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Ah cool, that's two, at last some consensus:):)--Sennim (talk) 22:21, October 11, 2013 (UTC) I would propose that we do a split of the bg-section to "Depicting Klingons" and do a rename for that article later on if someone comes up with a better name at some point. --Pseudohuman (talk) 14:39, November 14, 2013 (UTC) :I've recently changed my mind, now realizing the bg info would indeed probably be best if it was on its own page, as I think that might make it a little easier to edit it. Also, I quite like "Depicting Klingons" for the new article's name. --Defiant (talk) 13:17, November 20, 2013 (UTC) It has been several months now. Overall consensus seemed to be that the split would be okay and Depicting Klingons would be the title. Would someone like to do the split. Or are there still strong oppositions? --Pseudohuman (talk) 19:38, April 8, 2014 (UTC) I did the split, as there seemed to be a consensus on the matter, though I'm not sure if i did it correctly. But there we go. --Pseudohuman (talk) 17:40, July 6, 2014 (UTC)